This is indicative of what happens when you seek to make a change to the charter without conducting a full charter review.”

Jacqueline Schulz, registrar of voters

PORTSMOUTH — A required public hearing on a ballot question that would make town council and school committee elections nonpartisan will be held Oct. 13, following a lengthy discussion Monday over just how significant the proposed change would be.

The town council voted 7-0 to advertise the hearing on Question 7, which will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot. Voters will be asked, “Shall the offices of Town Council and School Committee be non-partisan?”

If approved, the Portsmouth Home Rule Charter would be amended to identify both bodies as nonpartisan and remove party designations from the ballot. The amendment would also add language providing for a lottery to determine the placement of school committee candidates on the ballot.

Much of Monday’s discussion centered on Vice President David Gleason’s questions about the wording of the agenda item and the purpose of holding a hearing before voters have decided whether to approve the change.

Gleason initially suggested describing the hearing as concerning “language changes” to the charter. Registrar of Voters Jacqueline Schulz objected, saying the proposal represents considerably more than a change in wording.

“It’s not a language change; you are changing the type of election that is being held,” Schulz said. “That is a demonstrative change; it is not mere language.”

Council member Juan Carlos Payero agreed. “You’re changing governing language. It’s an amendment. It’s not language changes,” Payero said.

Gleason said he was not disputing that the proposal is a charter amendment, but noted that the amendment would replace one block of charter language with another.

Schulz said the practical effect is what matters.

“The language of the actual question is … ‘Shall the offices of Town Council and School Committee be non-partisan?’” she said. “In doing that, sir, that means nonpartisan election as opposed to the partisan election that we currently administer. That is not a mere textural change. This is a significant change to the way Portsmouth chooses its leadership.”

“It deserves the seriousness and transparency of the hearing,” she added.

Under the proposal, party labels would be eliminated from the ballot. “The minute the partisan designation is removed from the candidate’s designation, it is a nonpartisan election,” Schulz said. “That is very different.”

Timing questioned

Gleason also questioned why the hearing should be held before voters decide the question. “When I first saw that this was on the agenda and I looked at it, I had no idea it was in the charter,” he said. “You think that we would have seen people question how it’s written. Why are we finding out about it now?”

“My initial thought was, why don’t we just wait until it passes?” he added.

Gleason said he had hoped to avoid a potentially two- or three-hour hearing if residents turn out to debate whether Portsmouth should make its municipal elections nonpartisan.

Council President Keith Hamilton said the council is simply following the process required for a proposed charter amendment. “It’s on the ballot no matter what,” Hamilton said. “It’s a technical thing we have to do.”

Town Clerk Jennifer West noted that the Oct. 13 hearing will not provide an opportunity for the council to rewrite the proposal. “There’s not going to be any changes to it at that public hearing,” West said. “You’re just voting to agree that it’s on there. It is set in stone for the ballot.”

’This is no surprise’

Schulz said the questions raised Monday illustrate what can happen when a charter amendment is advanced outside the town’s periodic comprehensive charter-review process.

“This is indicative of what happens when you seek to make a change to the charter without conducting a full charter review,” she said. “This is no surprise. This has been in the charter since 1972, with governing guidelines of how to amend a charter.”

Gleason responded that the issue had gone through the last two charter review committees but had never reached the council.

Council member Mary McDowell also questioned the hearing requirement, saying she did not recall similar hearings for a group of charter questions previously placed before voters.

“I’m just looking for clarity; that’s all,” she said.

Schulz said public hearings on charter amendments are the council’s responsibility. “You may be asked to explain what you’re doing and why you’re doing it, because this did not go through a charter review,” she said.

Hamilton said the town had followed the process previously. “We did have public hearings, and the council voted on all of them to go forward or not,” he said. “There’s no grand conspiracy there; we’re just following the charter.”

Gleason ultimately returned to the original motion to advertise the Oct. 13 hearing, which passed unanimously. The hearing will take place before early voting begins, something Schulz said would benefit voters because of the popularity of voting early.

Future meetings

Monday’s meeting was a quick one — all over in under 34 minutes.

The council will meet at 7 p.m. at town hall on the following dates: Tuesday, Oct. 13; Monday, Oct. 26; and Monday, Nov. 9.